Page 1 of 1

[Solved] why initrc, not systemd?

Posted: 07 Jan 2014, 02:39
by misterpah
hi all !
i've read how porteus works and i just love it ! :Yahoo!:
always clean state, application in modules. and all of that with a very fast loading speed !
great job guys!

i read it somewhere that gnome depends on systemd. I just amazed porteus fat gnome may run without systemd (initrc i guess).

so, why initrc and not systemd? just want to know.. hehe

Re: why initrc, not systemd?

Posted: 07 Jan 2014, 03:37
by phhpro

Re: why initrc, not systemd?

Posted: 07 Jan 2014, 14:21
by brokenman
The main reason is because we are a slackware based distro and we want to stick close the the slackware core. Pat decided to stay with the init scripts instead of moving to systemd so he probably has good reason. Secondly it would be a big job to rewrite (convert) all the startup to satisfy systemd. Perhaps fanthom will get bored one day and implement this just to see how much faster the startup really is. I think with porteus it wouldn't make much difference.

IMHO systemd was written because there are improvements that can be made to the current sysvinit method. Everybody is moving towards Mr Poettering's new systems (pulse audio for example) and i think this is good. Many people are against change, but linux will never evolve if it stays static.

Getting gnome to work without systemd was not so hard. Just a couple of packages to recompile without the standard arguments. This may not be so easy for gnome-3.10.

Re: why initrc, not systemd?

Posted: 07 Jan 2014, 17:29
by tome
Patrick Volkerding writes:
"...Concerning systemd, I do like the idea of a faster boot time (obviously), but I also like controlling the startup of the system with shell scripts that are readable, and I'm guessing that's what most Slackware users prefer too. I don't spend all day rebooting my machine, and having looked at systemd config files it seems to me a very foreign way of controlling a system to me, and attempting to control services, sockets, devices, mounts, etc., all within one daemon flies in the face of the UNIX concept of doing one thing and doing it well. To the typical end user, if this results in a faster boot then mission accomplished. With udev being phased out in favor of systemd performing those tasks we'll have to make the decision at some point between whether we want to try to maintain udev ourselves, have systemd replace just udev's functions, or if we want the whole kit and caboodle...."

Re: why initrc, not systemd?

Posted: 08 Jan 2014, 00:30
by phhpro

Re: why initrc, not systemd?

Posted: 08 Jan 2014, 06:20
by misterpah
after 5 minute of reading, i understand that systemd can load faster, and load in parallel.
i don't think systemd is crucial to porteus, because it's already very fast.. haha

as long i have my gnome, everything is great :D

ps : thanks brokenman for the awesome porteus fat gnome !